Saturday, September 1, 2007

(Scroll down. Read last email first)( I include this correspondence from April 2007 as "FIX THE FXI" has only recently gone on-line.)The correspondence concerns the publication of Prof Givender's (SAHRC) "hate speech" report in The Mail and Guardian. The report, inter alia, argued that the Kasrils " Nazi / Israeli " slur is not hate speech.

I have not received a response from Jane Duncan (FXI) concerning The M&G's refusal to publish a reply from The SAJR ( re The SAHRC's "hate speech" report.)

I realize that The SAHRC now considers this matter to be closed, but I believe that The FXI's silence is clear evidence that The FXI is not impartial with regard to their handling of this matter. Unfortunately, I have to conclude that the the reputation of The SAHRC has been tarnished in the process as the forum that you chose to publish your findings has been effectively closed to the editor of The SAJR.

yours sincerely,ANTHONY POSNER

Subject: Re: THE SAJR AND THE M&GDate: 27 April 2007 4:14:16 PMTo: kgovender

Dear Professor Govender,

Thank you for keeping me informed with regard to The SAHRC's deliberations.

On a broader level, The SAHRC should bear in mind that :

(1) in virtually all non-Islamic countries a government minister who used the "Israel/ Nazi" slur would be sacked and

(2) a human rights commission in these countries would be very reluctant to come to the aid of any government minister who continually published this repulsive slur.

The SAHRC should now embark on a trip to Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen so that it can understand the reasons why non-Islamic countries have adopted such attitudes.

Yours sincerely,

ANTHONY POSNER

On 27 Apr 2007, at 11:11 AM, Karthy Govender wrote:

Dear Mr Posner

I discussed yor concerns and my reply to your e-mail at the meeting of the Commission on 25th April 2007. The Commission was unanimously of the view that my response was both accurate and appropriate. Your subsequent submissions do not change our view. As far the Commission is concerned, the matter is now closed.

(1) The "substance" of Mr Sifrin's point was not carried in your"apology".

(2) Mr Sifrin is not "cool" with your decision. He is actuallyextremely angry about it.

(3) Mr Sifrin wants you to publish his letter together with a properapology for the way that you have treated him.

(4) "With respect" I am not conflating issues which are completelydifferent.

(5) I am going to forward this correspondence to The SA NationalEditors Forum.

Thank you,

ANTHONY POSNER

On 26 Apr 2007, at 9:50 AM, Ferial Haffajee Personal wrote:

Dear Mr. Posner and all other colleagues

The substance of Mr. Sifrin’s point was carried in an apology wepublished the week after Karthy Govender’s article was published. Iwrote to Geoff and he seemed cool with my decision. With respect, Ithink that Anthony is conflating issues which are completelydifferent. As I’ve told you before, Anthony, I do not want to beincluded in your correspondence with the FXI.

Please respect my right not to be.

Thank-you,

Ferial Haffajee

On 4/26/07 9:35 AM, "ANTHONY POSNER" wrote:

Dear Jane Duncan and Na'eem Jeenah,

I alert you both re my letter to the ombudsman at The Mail andGuardian.

Please can The FXI immediately intervene to ensure that The SAJR'sfreedom of expression is not undermined by The Mail and Guardian?

You state that The SAHRC "cannot direct the editorial policies of publications." However, it should be borne in mind that The SAHRC chose to publicize its "hate speech" findings in The Mail and Guardian. As a result, I think that The SAHRC has, at least, a moral obligation to ensure that The Mail and Guardian gives The SAJR a right to reply, especially when you consider that The SAJR was publicly criticized by The FXI for not giving Ronnie Kasrils a right to reply to my letter. I have as you can see from my correspondence, written to The FXI about their "double standards" but my email has not even been acknowledged.

Moreover, The SAHRC chose to publicize its findings in a newspaper that has consistently adopted an anti-zionist agenda. As you are well aware, Ronnie Kasrils has himself, over the years, regularly written many anti-zionist articles on its pages. In these particular circumstances, I consider that the SAHRC chose an inappropriate forum to distribute its "hate speech" report.

Perhaps it would also be pertinent for The SAHRC to consider issuing an advisory opinion on a) whether Mr Kasrils's human rights have been violated by a community newspaper refusing to publish his letter and b) whether the rights of the SA public are violated by a minister using a government website to carry out a personal political campaign.

I hope that the above additional points can be raised at your next SAHRC meeting. Please keep me updated with regard to any further developments / responses .

yours sincerely,Anthony Posner.

On 24 Apr 2007, at 9:46 AM, Karthy Govender wrote:

Dear Mr Posner

I refer to your various e-mails sent to me. I will address the twocentral concerns expressed by yourself. As you are aware, the Commissionpublished its opinion and findings regarding the referral by Mr. RKasrils. This is now a public document and is the official response ofthe SAHRC. In this opinion we dealt fully with the contentions of theSAJR and I assume that neither you nor it contend that we misstated theposition of the SAJR on this issue in the official opinion. The officialopinion was sent to the SAJR and is now in the public domain.

Due to space constraints, the piece published in the Mail and Guardianhad to be a summarised and truncated version of the main opinion. Thesummarised version focused primarily on the reasoning and thejustification for the Commission's conclusions.

In the summarised version, it is stated that the expression wascharacterized as hate speech by Mrs Suzman and the SAJR. We are of theopinion that this summarised version of the position of the parties inneither inaccurate nor unfair. In its editorial dated 9th November 2006,the SAJR indicated that the majority of its readers would deem thecomments made by Mr Kasrils to be hate speech. It decided not to publishMr Kasril's letter because it, in the opinion of the SAJR, would beoffensive to the sentiments of the majority of its readers. The tenorand spirit of the editorial is obviously supportive of the view that thecomments are hate speech. In the circumstances, we are of the view thatstating that the SAJR characterised the comments as hate speech doesnot misrepresent the position of the SAHR in this matter.

Secondly, we cannot direct editorial policies of publications. Thedecision as to which letters to publish is within the discretion of theeditorial board of the publication concerned. We cannot direct the Mailand Guardian or the SAJR to publish letters, it chooses not to publish.If you are of the opinion that the SAJR has been treated unfairly thenyou can lodge a complaint with the Press Ombudsman on 011 788 4837.

I will communicate your concerns to the Commission at our meeting laterthis week. Should the commission differ with the comments that I havemade, I will relay their response to you.

thank you

Yours faithfully

Karthy Govender

Dear Karthy Govender,

It is evident that The SAJR and The SAHRC do not have equal access to The Mail and Guardian. I feel that the human rights of some South African Jews have been undermined in the process.

Perhaps you could now comment on Ferial Haffajee's refusal to publish Geoff Sifrin's response to your "hate speech" report.

kind regardsANTHONY POSNER

From: ANTHONY POSNER Date: 23 April 2007 10:37:37 AMTo: Jane Duncan

Subject: DOUBLE STANDARDS AT THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION INSTITUTE ?

Dear Jane Duncan,

Last week I wrote to you about an item that appeared on the IT'S ALMOST SUPERNATURAL blog entitled "Kasrils misrepresents opponents.." Unfortunately, you did not even acknowledge my email.

Last year The FXI was extremely quick to admonish the South African Jewish Report (SAJR) when it refused to publish a letter from Ronnie Kasrils in which he compared the Israelis to Nazis.

As you are now aware, The Mail and Guardian did not recently publish a letter from the editor of the SAJR in response to the SAHRC"s "hate speech' report. However the editor of The Mail and Guardian has not been publicly criticized/ humiliated by The FXI.

Is The FXI infected by a serious case of double standards? (" a principle or rule applied firmly to one person or group and loosely or not at all to another" Chambers Dictionary)

It has emerged that you didn't publish the letter, written by the editor of The South African Jewish Report regarding Kathy Govender's SAHRC "hate speech" report ! And I thought that the editor of The SAJR had decided not to respond. Instead you published Steven Friedman's "butchering" of The SAJR.Is The M&G's editorial policy anti-zionist or is it, heaven forbid, just a teeny-weeny anti-semitic ? Please set the record straight.

ANTHONY POSNER

LETTER (UNPUBLISHED) FROM SAJR TO M&G

Karthy Govender’s account (M&G, March 16) of the Human Rights Commission’s stance on Ronnie Kasrils’ statements about Israel contains a serious inaccuracy. The first paragraph says: “His comments were characterised as hate speech by Helen Suzman and by the South African Jewish Report.”

This directly contradicts the stance of the SAJR, conveyed in our submission to the HRC. We stated clearly that we were not accusing Mr Kasrils of hate speech. We declined to publish a particular article of his because we believed it would be odious and offensive to our Jewish readership rather than promoting constructive debate. In our submission to the HRC we say:

“Neither I, nor the South African Jewish Report have accused Mr Kasrils of hate speech…. In its editorials, the SAJR expressed its estimation of how Mr Kasrils’ Nazi analogy would feel to its Jewish readership, based on its knowledge of that readership, which includes Holocaust survivors and the children of Holocaust survivors, and taking into consideration an alarming trend of rising anti-Semitism worldwide….. Other newspapers are obviously free to publish Mr Kasrils’ article and we would defend their legal right to do so.”

The SAJR does not treat lightly the hard-won right to freedom of expression. We gave the reasons for our decisions in our editorials and conducted a vigorous debate in our paper for several weeks about the matter (in which a strongly worded letter from Mr Kasrils was also included).

The SAJR is an independent newspaper. While its readership is primarily Jewish, the Jewish community is diverse and obviously the paper’s views do not automatically coincide with the views of all Jews or Jewish organisations.

That the real issue surrounding the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad is hate speech and incitement to violence, rather than freedom of expression, is clear when the intent behind their publication is understood.

The cartoons were meant to be inflammatory, showing disrespect and lack of moral maturity. The problem is not whether the Prophet should be pictured. It is that they portray him as an al-Qaeda image of violence; they portray Islam a violent religion. Aesthetically valueless, they were intended to incite right-wing racists to violence against “the terrorist within”.

The notion of “the enemy within” was used in Nazi Germany to demonise Jews and it became part of the propaganda arsenal that supported the Holocaust.

And cartoons too were a weapon used to demonise Jews, just as the radio was used in Rwanda to demonise Tutsis and to assist in that genocide.

An instructive exercise would be a comparison between the hate-filled Danish cartoons and the brilliant social commentary and caricatures, even of religious practice -- such as the Catholic fatwa against condom use -- by South Africa’s Zapiro.

We are not advocating that criticism of religion is taboo or religious topics are sacrosanct; religions themselves develop and advance through criticism. And, often, internal criticism is harsher than that by outsiders.

The 12 cartoons were published by Jyllands-Posten following its invitation to 40 cartoonists to parody Muhammad in order, as is clear from the invitation, to provoke Muslims.

They become truly dangerous in the context within which they were published: in a Europe that manifests increasing levels of Islamophobia and xenophobia, especially against Muslims, and where Muslims are demonised and scapegoated for increasing social misery. Further, they were published in Denmark, which has been named by the European Union Commission on Human Rights as the most racist country in Europe. It has witnessed a large number of attacks against Muslims, some resulting in the killings of Muslim immigrants. And, they were published by a newspaper with historical ties to German and Italian fascism and which called for a fascist dictatorship in Denmark. Jyllands-Posten is also anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim. Within such a context, these cartoons are clearly hate speech. Their publication is an ontological attack against the foundations of Islam.

How might Christians respond if Jesus was drawn wearing a crown of nuclear bombs instead of thorns? Or as a Roman soldier shoving his spear into the sides of Palestinians hanging on crosses? Or what would the Jewish reaction be to a cartoon of a Jew in the 1930s dreaming up a scheme to help relocate European Jews to Palestine and imagining the Holocaust as the way to do it.

Or of Moses as the pilot of an Apache helicopter firing on Palestinian homes.

When the debate erupted, we were quickly reminded that the West is a secular society with ideals of tolerance and open debate, even if such debate offends. But freedom of expression cannot be a carte blanche right to be used by racists and xenophobes to perpetrate violence. We can’t piss in Trafalgar Square or openly drink beer in the streets of New York or walk the malls of Johannesburg naked. If we can be punished for impinging on public space, should we not also be subject to limitations for hate speech against religious or cultural groups? We agree with Robert Fisk that this is not an issue of secularism vs Islam or of a clash of civilisations but is, rather, the childishness of civilisations.

The double standard goes beyond that. Since Holocaust denial is a criminal offence in many European countries, should Islamophobia and the assault on Muslim religious symbols not also be regulated? Jyllands-Posten refused to publish caricatures of Jesus in 2003 because they would “offend” its readers. Why then is its invitation to caricature Muhammad protected by free speech provisions?

In the current debate, the greater immaturity is not by the Muslim protestors but by those Westerners who refuse to see the bigotry, prejudice and Islamophobia and, in doing nothing, encourage hatred and violence.

Within the context of a Europe with escalating Islamophobia and racism, the responsibility is on us all -- Muslims and non-Muslims, atheists, secularists and believers -- to speak out.

Or we might have to live with the legacy of our silence as we, today, have to live with the legacy of genocides against Jews in Europe and Tutsis in Africa.

An additional issue raised by the current furore is of the dominance of liberal democratic notions of rights. Rights are only, according to such notions, individual. There is no space to consider the violation of the dignity of a community or the right, as a community, not to have one’s religious or cultural symbols denigrated, or the right of an entire people not to have its history under colonialism whitewashed. The notion of collective or communal rights is one that requires serious consideration in a young democracy like South Africa.

Disempowered Muslim communities in Europe and other parts of the world have expressed their right to free expression in the only manner they have available -- by taking to the streets in legitimate articulations of outrage and celebrations of democracy.

But some responses have been shortsighted, even immoral, as if to say: “If you insist on calling us terrorists, we will behave like terrorists.” The burning of embassies, the loss of life in Afghanistan for the sake of some stupid, albeit offensive, drawings and the placards that threaten bombs have not been in keeping with Islamic or Western democratic norms of protest and expression. Muslims’ right to dignity should be protected in their protests too. And their legitimate revulsion for attacks against religious symbols should also be expressed when we witness incidents such as the Taliban’s destruction of the Bamayan Buddhist statues.

Legitimate protest should not be allowed to be hijacked by dictatorial regimes whose primary agenda for jumping on the popular bandwagon is to deflect attention from their repression and denial of rights. Nor by the United States’s neo-cons who pontificate about the Danish cartoons when it was their theology of civilisational clashes, the new American century, Pax Americana and us-and-them polarisation that created the global conditions for such denigration to take place.

In South Africa, threats to the Mail & Guardian editor, phone calls to her mother and threats against property have been part of this phenomenon. There is a distinction between gratuitous reproduction of the cartoons as hate speech and the use of one cartoon by the M&G for didactic and illustrative purposes. Living in a rights-based society requires people to acknowledge and respect the rights of others as much as they require similar recognition for their rights.

Na’eem Jeenah is president of the Muslim Youth Movement, Professor Charles Amjad-Ali is a Christian theologian and Salim Vally is the former chairperson of the Freedom of Expression Institute

But I was wondering... do you like the cartoon? Does The Jew have a big enough nose? Would you feature the cartoon on The Freedom of Expression Institute website or is it too anti-semitic for The FXI ?

Viva etcBlacklisted etc

ps: the anti-semitic cartoon stinks so I am not showing the "artwork" on my blog. It can be viewed at.... www.mediareviewnet.com.pps: The MRN is a close ally of The FXI. (The MRN replied to my letter in The Citizen about The FXI.)

Just an after-thought...I wonder whether the cartoon is setting the stage for an MRN review of the Walt and Mearsheimer's forthcoming book about the power of the AIPAC lobby ?

If it is, then I can only conclude that anti-semitism melds nicely into the "academic debate".

The Media Review Network website 2007/08/31 :

The Organization of the Islamic Conference yesterday condemned the publication of a blasphemous caricature of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) by Swedish artist Lars Vilks in the Nerikes Allehanda newspaper.

The Swedish daily published the drawing, part of a series by Vilks, last Friday after art galleries had declined to display it. The newspaper argued the publication was in the defense of free speech.

OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu strongly condemned the newspaper for publishing the blasphemous caricature and said that this was an irresponsible and despicable act with mala fide and provocative intentions in the name of freedom of expression. He said the caricature was intended to solely insult and arouse the sentiments of Muslims of the world.

Ihsanoglu said: “The international community was well aware of the serious impact of such publications that were globally felt during the controversy that was created by the publication of similar cartoons by a Danish newspaper last year.”

He called on the Swedish government to take immediate punitive actions against the artist and the publishers of the cartoon and asked for their unqualified apology. He also called on Muslims to remain calm and to exercise restraint.

Earlier, Pakistan condemned the publication of the caricature, calling it offensive and blasphemous. “Regrettably, the tendency among some Europeans to mix the freedom of expression with an outright and deliberate insult to 1.3 billion Muslims in the world is on the rise,” the Pakistani Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

“Such acts deeply undermine the efforts of those who seek to promote respect and understanding among religions and civilizations,” it said.

The Swedish charge d’affaires was summoned to the ministry and a strong protest lodged with him, the ministry said.

Swedish Muslims Sue Daily Over Cartoon

SEP 3rd 2007 The following story is also reported on The MRN website. Of course, The MRN has not removed he anti-semitic cartoon from its website. Clearly, The MRN can empathize with Swedish Muslims but is unable to empathize with South African Jews!

By Hazem Mostaf, IOL Staff

The Sweden's Muslim Council has lodged a lawsuit against an illustrator and a local newspaper that recently published an offensive Prophet Muhammad cartoon, which has inflamed Muslims worldwide. "Our (legal) action is targeting the newspaper; the Swedish government is not party in this crisis," Sheikh Zuhri Barhamon, the Secretary General of the Muslim Association of Sweden, told IslamOnline.net Sunday, September 2, over the phone from Stockholm.

Barhamon said relevant Swedish laws do not criminalize the publication of cartoons.

"But judges could rule in our favor if they found the caption offensive or immoral," he added.

On August 18, Swedish newspaper Nerikes Allehanda published a cartoon by Swedish cartoonist But Lars Vilks, depicting Prophet Muhammad as a dog to illustrate an editorial on self-censorship and freedom of expression and religion.

Vilks said Saturday, September 1, he had no intention to apologize.

"You must be allowed to criticize religion, but I am not opposed to Islam," he told Danish agency Ritzau.

Positive

Barhamon hailed the positive stance of the government, which condemned the blasphemous cartoon all at once.

"The spokesman for the government said Sweden is standing by its Muslims (in this crisis)," he said.

Barhamon said Swedish Muslims, who make up some 500,000 of the country's nine million population, are being treated as citizens not a mere minority.

He said Swedish Muslims have remarkably displayed restraint over the crisis.

"We believe that dialogue is the one and only way to deal with crises and meet challenges," he said.

On other actions taken to respond to the daily, the Muslim activist said Muslim leaders sent strongly-worded statements and complaints to the Swedish association of journalists.

"Imams also urged Muslims after Friday prayers to collect signatures to send a petition to the newspaper, the cartoonist, police, politicians and public figures," he added.

On Friday, some 300 Muslims peacefully protested in Oerebro, a town west of Stockholm, where the Nerikes Allehanda is based.

Barhamon further said the Sweden's Muslim Council has set up an ad hoc committee to follow up the crisis and ponder the best ways to respond to the newspaper.

Mohamed Al-Khalafi, the head of the Muslim Association of Sweden, told IOL in an interview that Muslim leaders in the Scandinavian country would not internationalize the cartoon crisis.

Intelligence reports, however, have warned the government that inaction towards the offensive cartoon could trigger a massive Muslim boycott of Swedish products in the Muslim world on a scale similar to the Muslim boycott of Danish products last year, according to Hassan Moussa, the head of the Islamic Swedish Institute for Dialogue, Communication and Democracy.

In September 2005, Denmark's mass-circulation daily Jyllands-Posten printed 12 cartoons including portrayals of a man the newspaper called Prophet Muhammad, wearing a bomb-shaped turban and another showing him as a knife-wielding nomad flanked by shrouded women.

The insulting cartoons triggered a firestorm of protests across the Muslim world and strained Muslim-West ties.

The Danish government's adamancy to condemn the cartoons sparked a Muslim boycott of Danish products worldwide, costing the country's leading companies like Arla billions of dollars in a couple of months.

In a reply to my email about the disconnection of The Freedom of Expression Institute's comments section, Na'eem Jeenah states:"Except for the rare mail like the current one,all your mail to us, and those people who respond to you and cc us, are spam."

As far as the director of The Freedom of Expression Institute is concerned, therefore, my regular emails to him and Jane Duncan are "spam". His reasoning would appear to be that I am continually raising questions and issues that The FXI does not wish to answer or address.

It is evident, for example, that Jeenah would inevitably consider this following email, unanswered by The FXI, to be "spam":

Dear Jane Duncan and Na'eem Jeenah,

I note that The FXI has remained silent with regard to President Mbeki's refusal at SADC to condemn abuses of freedom of expression in Zimbabwe. Surely you should have spoken out?

I quote President Mbeki's latest letter on The ANC website:

"On Monday, August 20, the Business Day newspaper published a wholly fabricated story alleging that the SADC leaders were divided over this report, describing a discussion at the Summit Meeting that never took place. This is consistent with an unethical practice in sections of our media in terms of which they manufacture news and information and communicate complete fiction as the truth."

"The hostile allegation that our countries have recklessly turned their eyes away from the problems of Zimbabwe, because of the imperatives of solidarity, has always been nothing more than a product of propaganda, which all thinking persons would recognise as such."

"With regard to our own media, which seems to thrive on marketing the negative and underplaying the positive, with little regard to the objective reality that ours is a society going through a complex and exciting period of truly revolutionary change, we too must ask the question – where are the heroic journalists and scholars who will tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, about the unprecedented process of the rebirth of our country!"http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/2007/at33.htm

Do you agree with the President Mbeki's views?? If you don't, what precisely are you doing about it ?

VIVA>FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION>VIVABLACKLISTED DICTATOR

For the record, "spamming" is the abuse of electronic messaging systems to indiscriminately send unsolicited bulk messages.

I will leave it up to readers of this blog to make up their own minds whether the director of The FXI is right to consider the above email to be "spam".

Although all my comments on the FXI website have disappeared, some of my blog entries are featured on the bottom right hand side of their home page. I hope that The FXI is not foolish enough to censor these views.

Is The Freedom of Expression Institute really The Freedom of Censorship Institute? Only time will tell if my comments will be re-instated on The FXI website, but I am not holding my breath. As the days proceed, one can't help concluding that censorship, rather than freedom of expression, is enshrined in The FXI's mission statement.

Please write to The Freedom of Expression Institute and demand that the comments section on their website be immediately re-connected. We have to fight for freedom of expression in South Africa and it is totally unacceptable that The FXI is unwilling to discuss its agenda with members of the public.

SEP 4thThe blogs have now disappeared. Another technical problem re The FXI website??

As profound violations of the right to free expression continue around the globe, the International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX) has emerged as a strong and growing force of opposition against these violations.

IFEX was born in 1992 when many of the world's leading freedom of expression organisations came together in Montreal to discuss how best to further their collective goals.

Several funding and development organisations, recognising the need for more cooperation among freedom of expression groups, provided the initial support for IFEX.

These included The Ford Foundation, which provided funding to hold the first IFEX meeting; the Joyce Mertz-Gilmore Foundation of New York, which supported the establishment of the IFEX Action Alert Network; and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), through its International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC), which provided support for IFEX to extend its links into the developing world and promoted IFEX through its own developmental network.

At its core, IFEX is made up of organisations whose members refuse to turn away when those who have the courage to insist upon their fundamental human right to free expression are censored, brutalized or killed. Comprised of 71 organisations - located everywhere from the Pacific Islands to Europe to West Africa - IFEX draws together a tremendously diverse and dedicated global community.

In recent years, the IFEX community has been joined by many new members from the developing world - bringing new perspectives and energy. IFEX's decentralised structure creates a dynamic and truly international body.

The nerve-centre of IFEX is the Clearing House, located in Toronto, Canada and managed by Canadian Journalists for Free Expression. The Clearing House helps coordinate the work of IFEX members, reducing overlap among their activities and making them more effective in their shared objectives.

Thursday, August 30, 2007

The following 'Viva PSC - Wits Viva" is a post from Na'eem Jeenah's blog.I use it as evidence to prove that Na'eem's role as spokesperson for The Palestinian Solidarity Committee impinges on his ability to be fair and objective in his position as director of The FXI.I include my response to his post.

20 May 2007

Viva PSC-Wits Viva!Na'eem Jeeenah writes

"I just read the latest edition of the South African Jewish Report. (No, it's not my Sunday newspaper of choice; I just wanted to see whether the tabloid covered the Al-Nakba conference (see previous blog posting).) I was thrilled to see the following letter:

SAUJS ‘unprepared’ for Israel debateI AM writing to you as a deeply concernedmember of the Christian Zionist communitywho was present at the embarrassing debateheld between the South African Union ofJewish Students (SAUJS) and the PalestinianSolidarity Committee (PSC) at Wits on May 4,on the very emotive topic of “Is Israel anApartheid State?”First of all, the Jewish students handledthemselves in a manner that seemed extremelyunprepared, disorganised and, indeed, unintelligent,while the speakers from thePalestinian Solidarity Committee (while I donot agree with their sentiment) were veryknowledgeable and managed to have a massiveimpact on the crowd that sat before them.More than that, I was also very concerned tosee how relatively few Jewish students attendedthe debate, as it made Israel appear weakand outgunned. Did the Jewish students justnot care, or were they simply not campaignedproperly?I sincerely hope that the Jewish studentleadership of the future will come better prepared,better supported, more able to connectwith the audience they appear in front of andsimply more captivating when it comes to theuse of a term that is so often abused by thedetractors of Israel to delegitimise the state.Johan Pieter CoetzeeJohannesburgWell done, PSC-Wits. But before their heads become too swollen, let me remind the Wits PSC that they were only able to perform this well because they have truth on their side. I guess half the debate is won when your argument is actually true, verifiable and cold hard fact as opposed to spin and propaganda. So, the SAUJS students performed badly even though they were coached by members of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (as another article in the SAJR attests)."

"Viva PSC-Wits Viva!"

THE BLACKLISTED DICTATOR replied:

"Well done, Na'eem ! You certainly combine your position as spokesperson for PSC and director of The freedom Of Expression Institute quite brilliantly! But before your head become too swollen, let me remind The FXI that you are only able to perform this well because you have truth on your side."

Email from Na'eem Jeenah (director of The Freedom of Expression Institute):

Anthony Posner

Before you go off assuming you know what I am talking about and quoting me in allmanner of places - as is your rude habit, you should perhaps understand what I amsaying.

1. I can understand that sections of the Jewish community might be upset at MinisterKasrils Nazi-Israel analogy.

2. I can understand that these sections of the Jewish community might feel their dignityviolated by such comments.

3. I similarly understood that certain sections of the Muslim community felt similarlyaggrieved by the Danish cartoons.

4. Neither the publication of the Danish cartoons nor the Kasrils' comments in SouthAfrica constitute hate speech - as defined by our consitution and as articulated in theGovender judgement. Hate speech, according to Section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution is:"advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and thatconstitutes incitement to cause harm." Neither the publication of the said cartoons nor theKasrils comments can be contrued to "constitute incitement to cause harm" in the SouthAfrican context.

5. I would oppose any attempt to prevent these articulations (the cartoons and the Kasrilscomments) in South Africa through court interdicts as a violation of Section 16. (I didoppose this in the former case).

6. Finally, in case you still havent got it after our many comments on the SAJR issue, letme make this point: YOU wrote an article in a newspaper, challenging Person X aboutwhat he had said elsewhere and issued a challenge to said Mr X to respond to yourchallenges in the pages of the same newspaper. The newspaper had agreed to give Mr Xthe right of reply and to publish Mr X's responses. Mr X wrote a response, meeting yourchallenge, but the newspaper then refused to publish. This is the nub of the issue. Thewhole "hate speech" thing is a red herring that is just a fudging of a very simple violationof free expression. Should we then assume, Mr Posner, than you are willing to give it, butnot so willing to take it?

I am not going to write to Mr Karthy Govender in any way to support of your opposition tohis ruling about the Kasrils-hate speech issue. I, and the FXI more generally, welcomeand agree with the ruling - just as I had disagreed with an earlier ruling of the SAHRCwhere they ruled that the slogan "Kill the boer, kill the farmer" was hate speech. That toowasn't hate speech.

Na'eem Jeenah

On 25 Apr 2007 at 12:22, ANTHONY POSNER wrote:

Dear Na'eem Jeenah,

I am pleased that you have concurred when stating that " similarly asubstantial section of the Muslim community felt that way about theDanish cartoons." It seems that we have found some common ground.

With regard to your query about "the force of your argument", I shoulddraw your attention to my last email which quoted the relevant sectionfrom your Mail and Guardian article. I clearly referred to that partof your argument.

I am also suggesting that you now make a submission to KarthyGovender, on behalf of The FXI, which states that a substantial partof the Jewish community would feel violated by Ronnie Kasril's "Nazi /Israeli" analogy.

Perhaps you can also remind Jane Duncan about my "double standards"email? It might have slipped her mind. I know that she is extremelybusy running The FXI, but the issue that i have raised is relevant tomy recent correspondence with Karthy Govender.

kind regards,

Anthony Posner

On 25 Apr 2007, at 11:36 AM, na'eem jeenah wrote:

Anthony Posner

I do not have your email regarding what you call the FXI's "doublestandards". But since you have taken that up with my executivedirector, I will not respond to that.

I'm unsure whether I can agree that "most members of the Jewishcommunity" would feel their dignity violated by Minister Kasrilscomments, since I don't have any proper poll results available tome. However, I have no doubt that a substantial section of theJewish community would feel that way. Similarly, a substantialsection of the Muslim community felt that way about the Danishcartoons.

Having agreed with you on that issue, then, might I ask what exatclyyour point or your question is? What do you mean by "the force ofyour argument"? Which part of my argument are you referring to? Andwhat is the relevance to the Kasrils issue?

Na'eem Jeenah

On 25 Apr 2007 at 10:51, ANTHONY POSNER wrote:

Dear Na'eem Jeenah,

Thank you for your quick response. I have, as I am sure you areaware, also written to Jane Duncan about The FXI's "doublestandards" so perhaps you might wish to address, on behalf of TheFXI, the issues that I have raised in that email.

I think that the relevant passage in your Mail and Guardian articleis: "An additional issue raised by the current furore is of the dominance of liberaldemocratic notions of rights. Rights are only, according to suchnotions, individual. There is no space to consider the violation ofthe dignity of a community or the right, as a community, not tohave one´s religious or cultural symbols denigrated.."

Most members of the South African Jewish community feel that theirdignity is violated by Ronnie Kasril's use of the "Nazi / Israeli"analogy so it is evident that the force of your argument could alsoapply to the "Kasrils vs The SAJR" case.

I have copied Karthy Govender as the SAHRC is now considering someof the points that I have raised.

Last week I wrote to you about an item that appeared on the IT'S ALMOST SUPERNATURAL blog entitled "Kasrils misrepresents opponents.." Unfortunately, you did not even acknowledge my email.

Last year The FXI was extremely quick to admonish the South African Jewish Report (SAJR) when it refused to publish a letter from Ronnie Kasrils in which he compared the Israelis to Nazis.

As you are now aware, The Mail and Guardian did not recently publish a letter from the editor of the SAJR in response to the SAHRC"s "hate speech' report. However the editor of The Mail and Guardian has not been publicly criticized/ humiliated by The FXI.

Is The FXI infected by a serious case of double standards? (" a principle or rule applied firmly to one person or group and loosely or not at all to another" Chambers Dictionary)

The Freedom of Expression (FXI) website teases us with the tantalising possibilty that someday (unspecified) the comments section on the FXI website will return. Nobody knows precisely when this day will be and it is possible that the messiah will rock up first.

Apology for disabling of the "Comments" facility Tuesday, 14 August 2007Over the past week, the FXI website has been hacked twice. Neither we nor our service providers know who is responsible but we are investigating the matter. In the first case, we arrived at the office in the morning to find that the site was down and had been for hours. In the second, fortunately, we caught the problem before any damage was done.

However, our investigations seem to indicate that the vulnerability lies in the "Comments" plug-in (or the way in which it integrates into the site). We have therefore been advised by our service provider to disable the Comments facility for about a week while investigations on the site take place. If, at the end of that period, it is felt that it is safe to enable the Comments facility, we will do so. If not, we will either leave the facility diasabled for a longer period or consider using alternative software for that purpose.

We apologise for this but the integrity of our website is extremely important to us.

Na'eem Jeenah ,director of The Freedom of Expression Institute, writes:"People hack into websites for all kinds of reasons.

Your refusal to do the right thing now and to correct the misperception you might have created in the minds of a number of people proves that you are what I thought you weren't: "an unethical, attention-seeking little scumbag". Allow me to add "immoral, truthless, childlike twit"."

On 15 Aug 2007 at 8:23, Anthony Posner wrote:

Na'eem Jeenah and Jane Duncan,

Why on earth would anyone want to hack into the FXI website? It soundsso ridiculous.. do you really think that you are The CIA or The FBI ?

You are The FXI !

When the comments section is returned to The FXI site, i will informthe cc's.

The FXI website has been hacked twice in the past week and we haveisolated the problem as being the comments section of the site. Thecomments section has thus been disaled until we are able to fix thevulnerability. Now that you have cast aspersions on our intentions,I expect you will correct these nasty aspersions with the otherpeople whom you have mailed about this. I refuse to mail thembecause the FXI does not support spam (which means unsolicitedmail). Except for the rare mail like the current one, all your mailto us (and those of people who respond to you and cc to us) arespam.

na'eem

Anthony Posner,Why are you behaving like a little child whose toy has been takenfrom her?

Now, of course, I expect you to do the ethical thing and write toall the people who have written to on this issue to explain to themwhy the comments section on our site is not working. If you don't,you will just show yourself to be an unethical, attention-seekinglittle scumbag. Since you are not that, you will, of course, informthem, right?

New York, August 8, 2007 - A sweeping surveillance law ratified Friday in Zimbabwe will target "imperialist-sponsored journalists with hidden agendas," the country's information minister told CPJ. Sikhanyiso Ndlovu described the law as intending "to protect the president, a minister, or any citizen from harm."

The Interception of Communications Act will allow authorities to intercept all phone, Internet, and mail communications, and will establish a state monitoring center and require telecommunications providers to install systems "supporting lawful interceptions at all times," according to the Media Institute of Southern Africa.

Independent journalists say the law is intended to close a loophole in an already oppressive reporting environment. As Zimbabwe has become more restrictive of the media, a greater number of Zimbabwean journalists send their reports to international media outlets and online publications based outside the country. The lawful interception of communications could expose investigative reporters and create a climate of fear, said Zimbabwe Union of Journalists President Matthew Takaona.

"This surveillance law further cuts Zimbabwe off from the world and creates an even more oppressive environment than ever for the press," said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon. "The international community needs to be aware that Zimbabwe is attempting to suppress any remaining press freedom in its country. Urgent action is required."

While the law troubles reporters at SW Radio Africa, a UK-based independent broadcaster founded in December 2001 by uprooted Zimbabwean journalists, it would not deter the station, manager Gerry Jackson told CPJ. The broadcaster offers news headlines via SMS to a growing audience of about 5,000 mobile phone users in Zimbabwe, she said. The station also circulates transcripts of interviews via e-mail to the Zimbabwean diaspora.

In June 2006, the station reported that its medium-wave broadcasts into Zimbabwe had been jammed. There had been a similar scrambling of its short-wave broadcasts in 2005. The government denied that it had interfered, but in February it admitted to jamming Washington-based Studio 7, produced by Voice of America and staffed by uprooted Zimbabwean journalists. "We cannot allow foreigners to invade our airwaves without our authority," the Media Institute of Southern Africa quoted Deputy Minister of Information and Publicity Bright Matonga as saying.

The law also threatens to undermine local journalists who clandestinely report for independent Internet-based publications, Takaona said. Several Internet news sites have flourished in recent years as alternative sources of information in response to the government's strict accreditation regime. Under the 2002 Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, journalists can already be sentenced for up to two years in prison for practicing journalism without a license.

A journalist of South Africa-based Zimbabwean news Web site ZimOnline told CPJ the measures have been designed to create fear. ZimOnline reporters in Zimbabwe use e-mail pseudonyms to file stories and conceal their identities when calling government officials for comments, he said.

Local rights group Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights is considering challenging the legislation in court, acting director Irene Petras told CPJ. Zimbabwe's Supreme Court had previously ruled unconstitutional similar legislation granting the government sweeping powers to monitor communications that threaten national security when it struck down in 2004 the Posts and Telecommunications Act, according to news reports.

CPJ is a New York-based, independent, nonprofit organization that works to safeguard press freedom worldwide. For more information, visit http://www.cpj.org

If The "FXI / PSC" has any "proposals or problems" just dial Tehran + 111.

viva etcblacklisted etc

ps: I doubt that "The FXI / PSC" will have "complaints" about any of the executions !!

"His critics say he is dogmatic and refuses to heed expert advice. But now Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, is attempting to rebrand himself as a listening politician by establishing a hotline for ordinary voters.

Citizens wishing to voice their "problems, complaints and proposals" to the president will be able to do so by dialling 111. The service will be run by aides in the presidential office. It is the latest in a series of gambits designed to bolster Mr Ahmadinejad's man of the people persona, which helped him to win the 2005 presidential election."

POLITICAL SCIENCE EXAMINATIONCandidates must answer the following questions:

1. Which country is "the standard bearer of Satan" ?2. Which South African government minister recently went to Iran to further boost ties between South Africa and Iran ?

￼Ahmadinejad terms Iran-Sudan ties "excellent" Tehran, Feb 28, IRNA

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Wednesday morning that Iran-Sudan political relations are at a "very good level." President Ahmadinejad was talking to reporters at Mehrabad International Airport here before departing for Khartoum, Sudan, for an official two-day visit. "The two countries have always had amicable and brotherly ties ever since after the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. "This visit will play an important role in promoting mutual relations," he said. He noted that Iran and Sudan currently have wide-ranging relations in the economic, industrial, agricultural, energy and cultural fields. Ahmadinejad said he was visiting Khartoum upon an invitation of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir extended late April, 2006, saying the focus of the visit will be the signing of an agreement by the two sides to further boost ties.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Saturday that Israel was the standard bearer of Satan and the Jewish state would soon fall apart, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

The agency quoted Ahmadinejad as he spoke at a religious conference and did not elaborate on what he meant by Satan. Since the 1979 Islamic revolution, however, Iran has regularly referred to the United States as "the Great Satan."

"The Zionist regime is the standard bearer of invasion, occupation and Satan," he said, predicting Israel's eventual demise. "When the philosophy behind the establishment of a regime is in question, it is not unlikely that it will find itself on a course of decline and dissolution."

Israel condemned Ahmadinejad's statements as inimical to international peace and stability.

"The Iranian president's comments are typical of his vociferous animosity towards Israel," said David Baker, an Israeli government spokesman. "He threatens not only Israel but poses a clear and present danger to the international community as well."

Ahmadinejad has made anti-Israel comments in the past.

In October 2005, he caused outrage in the West when he said in a speech that Israel's "Zionist regime should be wiped off the map."

His supporters have argued Ahmadinejad's words were mistranslated and should have been better translated as "vanish from the pages of time" — implying Israel would vanish on its own rather be destroyed.Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Paula Slier's SAJR opinion piece has effectively cut The SAJBD into shreds. It is, unfortunately (or fortunately?) difficult to see how The SAJBD can mend, having ignominiously withdrawn the Icasa complaint regarding The SABC's anti-semitic treatment of Paula Slier.

The SAJBD's shabby / appalling treatment of Paula is, in actual fact, shabby / appalling treatment of us all. As a result, we should not just be outraged about the way that Paula has been treated. We should be outraged about the way that we have been treated.

Wendy Kahn's SAJR letter, stating that "we need to let go of our confrontational mindset and commit ourselves to a process of engagement with those around us" misses the point. The issue at stake is bigger than the SABC's reporting of the Israeli / Palestinian conflict. It is actually about the protection of the democratic and constitutional rights of all of South Africa's citizens. And for those who think that such rights are not worth fighting for, let me remind you that, without them, the road to Harare is unblocked.

Wendy Kahn ( National Director of The SAJBD) has erroneously explained The SAJBD"s dilemma as being between "confrontation" and "constructive dialogue". The real dilemma was, however, was whether The SAJBD should be standing up for democratic and constitutional rights in post apartheid South Africa. Of course, when put into this context, any rational citizen would realize that there was no dilemma at all.

Wendy Kahn has stated on the "It's Almost Supernatural" blog that, in return for the SAJBD's withdrawal of The Icasa complaint, written undertakings were given by The SABC:

"In making our decision, we had to make a judgment call as to what would best serve the interests of the constituency we represent. It was decided to provisionally meet with Dr Zikalala to see whether the core dispute we had with him could be resolved without the matter going to a formal ICASA hearing. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that we did not decide to withdraw our complaint on the basis of a single “feel-good” meeting and a few verbal reassurances. We asked for, and received, a number of concrete undertakings by the SABC to work with us in addressing the problem of anti-Israel bias within the organisation. " (Wendy Kahn)

So The SAJBD have returned from their trip to Dr Snuki Zikalala with "undertakings"...." peace in our time" ?...Ich don't think so!

That's the opening sentence of "1984+23=2007", my post-Orwellian escapade about the world's largest freedom of expression organization. The action takes place on the internet and my emails have now been blocked from the Freedomhouse domain.

The story starts like this... I live in South Africa and have frequently been confronting anti-zionist propaganda . The situation is extremely problematic since Ronnie Kasrils, The Minister of Intelligence, regularly writes articles and letters in the newspapers stating that The Israelis are Nazis. When The South African Jewish Report refused to give Kasrils a right to reply, he immediately went crying to the local Freedom of Expression Institute.The latter sided with The Minister of Intelligence and stated that The SAJR editor, Geoff Sifrin, was part of a Zionist project and "not worth his salt".

The Freedom of Expression Institute's reaction shocked me until I discovered that their Director, Na'eem Jeenah, is also spokesperson for The Palestine Solidaity Committee (PSC). Read his blog and my comments, http://naeemjeenah.blogspot.com/ to understand how he perceives "freedom of expression" ; the entries "Viva PSC" and "Ethical Editor" give the game away and reveal how cynically he uses his "freedom of expression" portfolio.

When I tried to inform Freedom House about the activities of The Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI), I came up against a brick Wall (Street). My email address has now been "blacklisted". Freedom House is unconcerned that a fellow IFEX (International Freedom Of Expression) council member has a director who is spokesperson for The PSC. I would have thought that they might shown some interest since Karin Karlekar who is employed by Freedom House actually edits a publication on press freedom and also convenes The IFEX council. However, she seems unperturbed about what is going behind the scenes at The FXI.

It seems to me that Freedom House do not take their own Mission Statement too seriously. It states :

"Freedom House is an independent non-governmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world. Freedom is possible only in democratic political systems in which the governments are accountable to their own people; the rule of law prevails; and freedoms of expression, association, belief and respect for the rights of minorities and women are guaranteed.

Freedom ultimately depends on the actions of committed and courageous men and women. We support nonviolent civic initiatives in societies where freedom is denied or under threat and we stand in opposition to ideas and forces that challenge the right of all people to be free. Freedom House functions as a catalyst for freedom, democracy, and the rule of law through its analysis, advocacy, and action."

I informed Karlekar that blacklisting me would be a contravention of the above mission statement but it didn't make any difference. I am, as a result, still officially blacklisted (email "non grata") by Freedom House.

The Freedom of Expression's worthy, but ineffective Icasa petition has failed to attract much (if any) support from South Africa's journalists.Is it that the media have no faith in the petition or are they too apathetic to sign it ? Perhaps The FXI has failed to publicize it widely ? In order to strengthen The FXI's unimpressive campaign, I urge all readers of FIX THE FXI to sign the Icasa petition asap.

I believe that The SABC should immediately "SACK SNUKI". Clearly The FXI should be running a much stronger campaign demanding that The ANC is excised from all editorial decision making at The SABC. Unfortunately, The FXI does not seem to fully understand that the SABC should be completely free from political appointments. If it did, perhaps Na'eem Jeenah, spokesperson for The Palestine Solidarity Committee, would have to vacate his job at The FXI ?

http://www.petitiononline.com/sabc/

To: Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa)We, members of the South African public and listeners of viewers of various SABC services hereby bring to the notice of Icasa that we believe that the SABC has violated its founding statute, the Broadcasting Act, twelve times, its licence conditions seven times and the South African Constitution three times in the recent past.

These figures are based on the findings of the Commission of Enquiry into blacklisting and related matters which concluded its work late last year, as well as subsequent events.

We waited for the SABC Board to implement the findings of the report, but are concerned at what appears to be the SABC’s lack of appropriate response to the Commission’s findings. There is no information in the public domain on actions being taken on the measures proposed by the Commission. Instead, in a perverse twist, according to media reports, attempts have been made to issue SAFM radio anchor John Perlman with a written warning for refuting the SABC’s statement denying the existence of the blacklist. There is also no indication of whether action is being taken against the person responsible for excluding commentators, the Managing Director of News and Current Affairs, Dr. Snuki Zikalala. We have lost confidence in the ability of the SABC to address the report’s findings.

By excluding certain commentators, Zikalala’s actions have violated the Broadcasting Act’s requirement for the SABC’s public services to ‘provide significant news and current affairs programming which meets the highest standards of journalism, as well as fair and unbiased coverage, impartiality, balance, and independence from government, commercial and other interests’. By limiting the diversity of opinion the public has access to, the SABC has also violated the provision of its licence conditions that require it to ‘provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to receive a variety of points of view on matters of public concern’. Zikalala’s conduct in giving express or inferred instructions also does not meet the highest standards of journalistic professionalism, as the SABC is required to do in terms of the Broadcasting Act and its licence conditions.

Further, failure to act on declining staff morale is a violation of the Broadcasting Act, as the SABC has failed to secure the conditions necessary for professional journalism. The allegation that Zikalala showed a Special Assignment Programme to the Presidency prior to broadcast is especially grave, as it opens the SABC up to editorial influence by the President’s office, in violation of the Broadcasting Act and the SABC’s code of editorial practice.

The statement released by the SABC on the 20 June 2006, denying the existence of the blacklist, misled us. In the process, the SABC violated the Broadcasting Act, its own Code of Practice and Icasa’s Code of Conduct for broadcasters.

We further believe that the SABC may well have violated the freedom of expression clause in the South African Constitution when it attempted to the interdict the Mail and Guardian newspaper to force it to take down a copy of the report from its website, and also with the alleged showing of a Special Assignment programme to the Presidency.

If reports about the attempts to discipline John Perlman are accurate, then this attempt could also be a breach of the Constitution, the Broadcasting Act and SABC licence conditions, as he would have been disciplined for practicing professional journalism and meeting high standards of accuracy.

We request Icasa to enforce the licence conditions and underlying statutes of the SABC, by investigating, hearing and making a finding on this complaint and on the complaint of the Freedom of Expression Institute, submitted to you on the 20 February 2007. We also request you to ensure that the SABC provides you and the public with a full report on the actions it has taken on the Commission’s findings. You must insist and ensure that the SABC desists from further contraventions of the Broadcasting Act and its licence conditions, and you should direct the SABC to take any remedial steps that you see fit to prescribe. The SABC’s conduct around the blacklisting saga cannot be condoned, as it runs counter to the letter and spirit of the Broadcasting Act.

Tucked away on The Freedom of Expression Institute's website is a comment that The FXI has given to the Cape Times. It concerns the government's attempts to bully The Sunday Times into silence with regard to its expose of Manto.At a time, when freedom of expression is being attacked by Mbeki and his coterie, the question arises whether Jane Duncan, exec director of The FXI, is doing everything in her power to confront govt censorship.Is the following comment to The Cape Times really enough ? I urge Jane Duncan to speak out much more forcefully on this issue. Don't just tell The Cape Times! Let the whole of South Africa know that the govt must stop its campaign to censor the press.

The FXI website.Manto Tshabalala-Msimang vs. Sunday Times Tuesday, 21 August 2007Comment given to Cape Times

In our view, there exists a constitutional right to privacy, which should be respected regarding health matters. The disclosure of medical information without express, informed consent, is a gravely serious matter, and is not excused simply on the grounds of freedom of expression.

But, when it comes to the public figures, then it is possible that their right to privacy may be outweighed by overriding considerations of public interest. There is no magic formula when it comes to weighing up which comes first: the right to privacy or the public interest. Getting the balance right depends on the facts of a particular story.

We believe that in relation to the Sunday Times reporting on the Health Minister, the public interest outweighs her right to privacy. The articles raise questions about whether the Minister is fit, physically and ethically, for office. The paper does not delve gratuitously into private questions; the exposure of private facts is linked to public policy questions of considerable importance.

That is why the FXI supports the Sunday Times's right to publish such stories. The FXI would not necessarily support invasions of the right to privacy of public figures as a matter of course, and simply because they are public figures: but in this case, the disclosure of private facts raises questions about whether Manto Tshabalala-Msimang should remain in office. If an inappropriate person is in office, then the health of many people who rely on the public healthcare system may be affected negatively. And that, ultimately, is where the public interest in this matter lies.

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Na'eem Jeenah, director of The Freedom of Expression Institute and spokesperson for The Palestinian Solidarity Committee, must show the following IFEX action alert to Ronno Einstein, South Africa's anti-zionist Minister of Intelligence.

( and by the way, I can't wait to read Mr Einstein's reactions to it on the "oh so unbiased" pages of The Mail and Guardian.)

In the words of Jane Duncan, exec director of The FXI and IFEX council member, "Viva, Freedom Of Expression, Viva!"

(HRW/IFEX) - The following is an abridged version of a Human Rights Watch press release:

(Beirut, August 29, 2007) - Human Rights Watch today canceled a news conference planned for Thursday, August 30, 2007 in Beirut, citing reports by Hezbollah-controlled media about planned demonstrations to prevent the scheduled event at the Crowne Plaza hotel, and the hotel's decision to disallow the news conference.

Human Rights Watch had called the news conference to release "Civilians Under Assault: Hezbollah's Rocket Attacks on Israel in the 2006 War," a new 128-page report ( http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/08/30/lebano16740.htm ) criticizing Hezbollah for its conduct during the 2006 war with Israel, in particular Hezbollah's practice of deliberately and indiscriminately firing rockets toward Israeli civilian areas.

"Hezbollah is trying to silence criticism of its conduct during the 2006 war," said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division. "But the fairness and accuracy of our reporting will speak for themselves, whether we hold a press conference or not."

This report is one of a series by Human Rights Watch examining compliance of parties to the 2006 war with international humanitarian law. On September 6, Human Rights Watch is releasing in Jerusalem a report critical of Israel's conduct in its attacks on Lebanon, a comprehensive follow-up to a report released during the war, titled "Fatal Strikes: Israel's Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon" ( http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/ ).

"Our focus is on the protection of civilians wherever they may be, and not about taking sides in a conflict," said Whitson.

In the course of preparing the report, Human Rights Watch repeatedly sought meetings with Hezbollah officials and solicited information in writing from them, with no substantive response. But starting on August 28, 2007 the Hezbollah-controlled al-Manar television station and website http://www.almanar.com.lb ran repeated stories criticizing Human Rights Watch for its planned news conference and reporting that Lebanese organizations were mobilizing to "prevent" the news conference.

Al-Manar television and http://www.almanar.com.lb falsely stated that Human Rights Watch had been assisted by unspecified Lebanese parties in preparing the news conference. It refused repeated requests to provide Human Rights Watch an opportunity to present its report and respond to the accusations. Due to security concerns following the decision of the hotel where the conference was planned to cancel the venue, Human Rights Watch has decided not to relocate Thursday's news conference and to publish the report for immediate release.

( . . . ) The full report, "Civilians Under Assault: Hezbollah's Rocket Attacks on Israel in the 2006 War", is accessible at http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/08/30/lebano16740.htm

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

JANE DUNCAN AND NA'EEM JEENAH,WHAT ABOUT THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION'S REMOVAL OF ITS WEBSITE COMMENTS FACILITY TOGETHER WITH THE ERASURE OF MY COMMENTS ??HOW ABOUT SOME ACTION TO REINSTATE THEM ?"YOUR ACTIONS ARE UNACCEPTABLE VIOLATIONS OF MY FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, ENSHRINED IN THE FXI'S MISSION STATEMENT."FXI WEBSITE National Day of Action Monday, 27 August 2007

The Freedom of Expression Network (FXN) will be hosting its first National Day of Action with events across four provinces on Thursday, 30 August 2007 to raise awareness and build solidarity against repression and how the Regulation of Gatherings Act has been manipulated in an attempt to silence poor and other marginalized groups. Scores of organizations will join hands in solidarity on the 30th of August against attempts to intimidate, harass, victimize, unlawfully arrest and torture protesters. These actions by the state are unacceptable violations of our human rights, enshrined in our nation's constitution.

The logic of the attached VOC report (and The FXI obviously subscribes to it) is that Bassem Eid and Pogrund are spokesmen for "apartheid" Israel. They must therefore be stopped from putting forward the "Zionist / apartheid" viewpoint. It seems that only those who believe in Israel's destruction should be allowed on The SABC. This is "freedom of expression" as far as The FXI is concerned. According to this logic there can be no debate on The SABC re whether Israel is actually "apartheid". One would have to conclude that The Hamas viewpoint is the only one that The SABC should be allowed to broadcast. I wonder, however, whether Hamas should also be allowed to broadcast it's anti-semitic charter on The SABC? Or would Jane Duncan (exec director of FXI) think that would be a step too far? Perhaps The FXI can now clarify its position on whether Hamas's anti-semitic charter should be broadcast on The SABC ?

"According to the PSG and PSC, during the Apartheid era the SABC was partial to the Israeli state and to Zionism. “As South Africans who fought for a democratic dispensation in South Africa, we expect that our public broadcaster will stop putting forward the Zionist viewpoint and will end the broadcaster’s bias in favour of the illegal Israeli occupation. Did the world’s media insist on ‘balance’ whenever they interviewed a member of South Africa’s liberation movements? Did they also insist on the presence of a spokesperson on behalf of Apartheid South Africa?

The public broadcaster in a society that has just overcome legislated racism and is struggling to throw off the shackles of centuries of dispossession and of poverty must be on the side of those who are victims of racism, colonialism and apartheid and cannot pretend to want to be balanced. When faced with the reality of an oppressive apartheid regime with vast resources for propaganda, the SABC must give the stronger voice to the oppressed and subjugated,” the joint statement signed by Mercia Andrews, Makoma Lekalakala and Salim Vally concluded." VOC

I note that the reply to my letter in "The Citizen" is now on the homepage of The Media Review Network website.

Is Iqbal Jassat paid to write replies on your behalf ? Or does he do it in his spare time?

I will leave it up to the ccs to evaluate the style and intellectual content of his prose.

viva etcblacklisted etc

Strange logic over activist at FXI ￼

ANTHONY Posner complains about Na’eem Jeenah’s association with the Freedom of Expression Institute (The Citizen, August 7).

Posner suspects that Jeenah’s profile as an “Islamic activist” is problematic for the SA Jewish Board of Deputies. What a strange sense of logic!

It’s no different from the weak, defeatist approach adopted by failed apologists of South Africa’s racist past, who constantly clamoured against those seeking to question an ideology of hate.

Many respected academics, journalists and others were hounded and persecuted as a consequence of intolerance displayed by apartheid-era agents.Does Posner desire that his intolerance of critics of Israeli apartheid result in barring Jeenah’s links with the FXI?

If so, he certainly cherishes a foolish desire to turn SA’s momentous strides back to the tyranny of the past.

I attach The FXI's Icasa complaint with regard to Paula Slier and have highlighted section 32.

Have you considered how this might conflict with the FXI's real views about what kind of commentators should be allowed on The SABC (south african broadcasting corp) re the reporting of "apartheid" Israel?

As you are aware, The FXI's director, Na'eem Jeenah is also spokesperson for The PSC ( Palestine Solidarity Committee) and is doing his best to stifle commentators who do not support Israel's destruction. The attached recent extract from Voice of The Cape is clear evidence that The FXI is speaking with a forked tongue !

The FXI's blatant hypocrisy has, once again, been laid bare and it is evident that The FXI is making a mockery of freedom of expression in South Africa.

In the circumstances, both you and Na'eem Jeenah should immediately resign from The FXI. Freedom of expression in South Africa is not being properly promoted by The FXI, as you are a pair of ideologues who believe in censorship.

Viva etcBlacklisted Dictator

FXI'S ICASA COMPLAINTPaula Slier 30 In terms of s.10(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act, the public services of the SABC must provide significant news and public affairs programming which meets the highest standards of journalism, as well as fair and unbiased coverage, impartiality, balance and independence from government, commercial and other interests. This requirement is repeated in s.4.2.3.4 of the licence conditions of SABC services.

31 The report makes reference to a direct instruction from Dr. Snuki Zikalala given to all news desks, that no material or story supplied by journalist Paula Slier should be used by SABC news desks until further notice.

32 With respect to Slier, the Commission found Zikalala's reason for issuing this instruction - namely that she was biased towards Israel - was improper in that it was motivated by a political position supporting the Palestine Liberation Organisation. They argued that her exclusion was in direct conflict with the SABC's policies and Code.

33 It is our contention that her exclusion was also in violation of the Broadcasting Act's requirement to provide programming that was independent from political interests, including the liberation movement and (according to Zikalala) its historic support for the PLO. He therefore allowed political allegiance to govern his decision making about the use of Slier, and therefore took a non-independent and biased decision, in violation of s.10(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act.

34 Zikalala's instruction on Slier is also a violation of the SABC's own Editorial Code, which states that 'we do not allow advertising, commercial, political or personal considerations to influence our editorial decision-making', and further 'the staff may not allow their professional judgment to be influenced by pressures from political, commercial or other sectional interests'. The Editorial Policy goes onto state, 'SABC reporting should be, and be seen to be, accurate, fair, impartial and balanced. Our audiences have the right to expect SABC news and current affairs programming not to reflect the personal views of editorial staff'. Clearly this was not the case in relation to the exclusion of Slier, who was excluded because of Zikalala's personal and political views.

VOICE OF THE CAPE"According to the PSG and PSC, during the Apartheid era the SABC was partial to the Israeli state and to Zionism. “As South Africans who fought for a democratic dispensation in South Africa, we expect that our public broadcaster will stop putting forward the Zionist viewpoint and will end the broadcaster’s bias in favour of the illegal Israeli occupation. Did the world’s media insist on ‘balance’ whenever they interviewed a member of South Africa’s liberation movements? Did they also insist on the presence of a spokesperson on behalf of Apartheid South Africa?

The public broadcaster in a society that has just overcome legislated racism and is struggling to throw off the shackles of centuries of dispossession and of poverty must be on the side of those who are victims of racism, colonialism and apartheid and cannot pretend to want to be balanced. When faced with the reality of an oppressive apartheid regime with vast resources for propaganda, the SABC must give the stronger voice to the oppressed and subjugated,” the joint statement signed by Mercia Andrews, Makoma Lekalakala and Salim Vally concluded." VOC

I note that The FXI has remained silent with regard to President Mbeki's refusal at SADC to condemn abuses of freedom of expression in Zimbabwe. Surely you should have spoken out?

I quote President Mbeki's latest letter on The ANC website:

"On Monday, August 20, the Business Day newspaper published a wholly fabricated story alleging that the SADC leaders were divided over this report, describing a discussion at the Summit Meeting that never took place. This is consistent with an unethical practice in sections of our media in terms of which they manufacture news and information and communicate complete fiction as the truth."

"The hostile allegation that our countries have recklessly turned their eyes away from the problems of Zimbabwe, because of the imperatives of solidarity, has always been nothing more than a product of propaganda, which all thinking persons would recognise as such."

"With regard to our own media, which seems to thrive on marketing the negative and underplaying the positive, with little regard to the objective reality that ours is a society going through a complex and exciting period of truly revolutionary change, we too must ask the question – where are the heroic journalists and scholars who will tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, about the unprecedented process of the rebirth of our country!"http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/2007/at33.htm

Do you agree with the President Mbeki's views?? If you don't, what precisely are you doing about it ?

As a Jew living in South Africa, I believe that my human rights are being undermined by the fact that Na'eem Jeenah is both spokesperson for The PSC and director of The FXI.

Is it within The SAHRC's jurisdiction to adjudicate on such matters? Can I make a submission/ complaint to The SAHRC ?

yours sincerely

ANTHONY POSNER

Activist`s ties sway FXI stance (The Citizen Aug 7th)•WIKIPEDIA makes it quite clear that Na`eem Jeenah is essentially an Islamic activist. The question arises whether this spokesman for the Palestine Solidarity Committee should be the director of the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI). Likewise, would it be fair if someone at SA Jewish Board of Deputies or SA Zionist Federation was running the FXI? It is evident Na`eem Jeenah`s allegiances outside of the FXI are influencing the FXI`s stance toward the SABC and the SAJBD. ANTHONY POSNER by e-mail

STRANGE LOGIC OVER ACTIVIST AT FXI (The Citizen Aug 9th)Anthony Posner complains about Na'eem Jeenah's association with The FXI.

Posner suspects that Jeenah's profile as an "Islamic activist" is problematic for The SAJBD. What a strange sense of logic!

It's no different from the weak, defeatist approach adopted by failed apologists of South Africa's racist past, who constantly clamoured against those seeking to question an ideology of hate.

Many respected academics, journalists and others were hounded and persecuted as a consequence of intolerance displayed by apartheid-era agents.

Does Posner desire that this intolerance of critics of Israeli apartheid result in barring Jeenah's links with The FXI?

If so he, he certainly cherishes a foolish desire to turn SA's momentous strides back to the tyranny of the past.

IQBAL JASSATMedia Review Network

Dear Sir

The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) acknowledges receipt of your complaint received on 17 August 2007, wherein you allege a violation of your human rights by the fact that Naéem Jeenah is both the spokesperson for the PSC and the Director of the FXI.

The SAHRC was established to investigate the prima facie violations of human rights as contained within the Bill of Rights, which is Chapter Two of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996.

The Commission, upon assessment of this complaint, advises that your allegation does not constitute a violation of any of the rights that are in Chapter 2 of the South African Constitution. Thus, the Commission does not have jurisdiction to deal with your complaint.

The Commission thus cannot assist you with your complaint as it does not fall within its mandate will consider this file closed. You are advised that you can appeal this decision in writing to the Chairperson of the Commission within 45 days of receipt to this letter.